GaryRissling wrote:I don't usually like make posts regarding partisan politics; but what seems to be happening to the few more fiscally conservative republicans over the past few weeks is disturbing in light of our fiscal crises.

DeMint resigns:

DeMint's decision to leave the Senate after only eight years shocked Washington. DeMint had been seen as a future Senate leader for his party and was already a leader to a growing number of conservatives in the House and Senate.

I don't think the article says how many killed were males over the age of 17, which is the extent of the required due diligence needed to classify someone as a militant. That, and of course they have to be located in a strike zone.

ASADABAD (PAN): Five members of a family were killed in an air strike conducted by the International Security Assistance Force in Wanth Waigal district of eastern Nuristan on Wednesday, an official said.

The victims’ elder brother said two of his siblings were teachers and were innocent people.A resident of Marogai district said that among the victims were three brothers and two of their nieces.

Romney's problem was that he wasn't conservative enough, so Demint could be a powerhouse in 2016.

Spoiler:

:pop:

It was a great day in SC yesterday, sorry you missed it. Inside joke: Our esteemed Governor Nikki Haley decreed that all state offices answer their phones thusly: "It's a GREAT day in South Carolina!!" Yeah, she actually ordered that.

Anyway, DeMint is unelectable in a national election. Here's a quote from him:

“If someone is openly homosexual, they shouldn’t be teaching in the classroom and he holds the same position on an unmarried woman who’s sleeping with her boyfriend—she shouldn’t be in the classroom.”

The political dance started a day earlier, when Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell tried to call a vote on Obama's fiscal plan which included granting the White House the ability to approve automatic increases in the debt ceiling. Democratic Leader Harry Reid blocked it, allowing McConnell to suggest even Democrats don't want Obama's plan to pass.

But then Reid turned around Thursday and proposed calling a vote in the afternoon on the debt-ceiling plan. Reid, though, wanted to call a simple majority vote -- McConnell objected, saying a 60-vote threshold was warranted. Reid in turn objected to that, and the entire vote was scuttled again.

Democrats emerged claiming McConnell had shot down his own proposal, though the proposal was actually Obama's.

The word 'filibuster' appears nowhere in the Fox News piece, which certainly makes it clear that this was Obama's plan. (which it is..... but it's McConnell's bill)

Last year, Democrats ended up filibustering their own debit limit bill as a procedural move to counter McConnell's insistence upon a 60-vote threshold. Reid said that if you want a 60-vote majority, then the procedural clock will have to play out in full. So the filibuster was to delay the vote for about 24 hours. But that vote ultimately happened; any bets one when the Senate might take an up-or-down vote on McConnell's measure?

Fwiw, I think it's borderline criminal (if not unconstitutional) to use the debt ceiling as negotiation leverage. The money is already spent, the ceiling simply authorizes the government to pay the bill.

The political dance started a day earlier, when Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell tried to call a vote on Obama's fiscal plan which included granting the White House the ability to approve automatic increases in the debt ceiling. Democratic Leader Harry Reid blocked it, allowing McConnell to suggest even Democrats don't want Obama's plan to pass.

But then Reid turned around Thursday and proposed calling a vote in the afternoon on the debt-ceiling plan. Reid, though, wanted to call a simple majority vote -- McConnell objected, saying a 60-vote threshold was warranted. Reid in turn objected to that, and the entire vote was scuttled again.

Democrats emerged claiming McConnell had shot down his own proposal, though the proposal was actually Obama's.

The word 'filibuster' appears nowhere in the Fox News piece, which certainly makes it clear that this was Obama's plan. (which it is..... but it's McConnell's bill)

Last year, Democrats ended up filibustering their own debit limit bill as a procedural move to counter McConnell's insistence upon a 60-vote threshold. Reid said that if you want a 60-vote majority, then the procedural clock will have to play out in full. So the filibuster was to delay the vote for about 24 hours. But that vote ultimately happened; any bets one when the Senate might take an up-or-down vote on McConnell's measure?

Fwiw, I think it's borderline criminal (if not unconstitutional) to use the debt ceiling as negotiation leverage. The money is already spent, the ceiling simply authorizes the government to pay the bill.

Devils advocate... but If I have a credit card with the wife, and she constantly max's it out. Ain't know way I'm raising the credit limit without an ironclad agreement from her to cut back on her spending... Come to think of it, if she cuts back on her spending, I don't need to raise the credit limit do I?

McConnell needs to put up or shut up. His first move was good, showed how Reid even hates Obama's bill in full but when the tables are turned he is shown as being a hypocrit, as all these d-bags are really, and not allowing an up and down vote on rasing the debt ceiling. If it passes it passes. I'm sick of either side holding the process hostage because of this stupid 60 vote rule. If you want to fillibuster then by all means get up there and total for 3 days straight if you can. when 10 Senators can do that in a row then it will be tabled and they will move on.

Romney's problem was that he wasn't conservative enough, so Demint could be a powerhouse in 2016.

Spoiler:

:pop:

The demographic that the republicans need to concentrate on are women. Romney won the male vote 52 - 45. Obama won the female vote 55-44. At no other time in the last 50 years has then been such a large spread amongst genders.

ExPatriatePen wrote:Devils advocate... but If I have a credit card with the wife, and she constantly max's it out. Ain't know way I'm raising the credit limit without an ironclad agreement from her to cut back on her spending... Come to think of it, if she cuts back on her spending, I don't need to raise the credit limit do I?

The problem is that you are also using the same card to add to your already unmatched gun collection. And, well, you just can't seem to break your own habits, either. In fact, not only do you refuse to acknowledge that your gun collection presents a financial hurdle to your bank account at least equal to the one your wife is creating, a lot of your friends insist that you should be buying even moar guns.

DelPen wrote:McConnell needs to put up or shut up. His first move was good, showed how Reid even hates Obama's bill in full but when the tables are turned he is shown as being a hypocrit, as all these d-bags are really, and not allowing an up and down vote on rasing the debt ceiling. If it passes it passes. I'm sick of either side holding the process hostage because of this stupid 60 vote rule. If you want to fillibuster then by all means get up there and total for 3 days straight if you can. when 10 Senators can do that in a row then it will be tabled and they will move on.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with your suggestion. But that will get characterized by Republicans as 'killing the filibuster'..... never mind the fact that it's more accurately described as restoring the filibuster.

The way a filibuster works, you need a coordinated effort by at least 40 Senators. If you look at the 100 Senators and rank them by numbers of votes they received, you see that the bottom 40 vote getters represent about 6% - 7% of the total ballots cast in all Senate races. Yet they can theoretically hold the governance of the U.S. hostage. As it has transpired the past few year, Republicans representing about 12% of U.S. population have been able to (ab)use this procedural gimmick to completely bring the Senate to a grinding halt.

I understand why the Founding Fathers wanted a mechanism to prevent the big states from running over the little states, and that Democrats have used the filibuster, too. But the past four years have been utterly remarkable.

tifosi77 wrote:I understand why the Founding Fathers wanted a mechanism to prevent the big states from running over the little states, and that Democrats have used the filibuster, too. But the past four years have been utterly remarkable.

They also wanted the Senate elected by State legislators, not directly by the people. Not sure what difference it would make but it would be interesting. I think it also speaks how out of control the federal government is compared to what it was intended.

I also have a huge problem with Reid not even introducing bills passed by the house. There have been over 30 jobs bills passed that he is ignoring. To me that is a bigger problem than using the rules as they are written and have been adhered to for decades in the Senate.

All this nonsense needs to stop, they need to do their jobs and we all need to live with the consequences of elections. That's why we have them, so if we don't like the way they made decisions we replace them.

ExPatriatePen wrote:Devils advocate... but If I have a credit card with the wife, and she constantly max's it out. Ain't know way I'm raising the credit limit without an ironclad agreement from her to cut back on her spending... Come to think of it, if she cuts back on her spending, I don't need to raise the credit limit do I?

The problem is that you are also using the same card to add to your already unmatched gun collection. And, well, you just can't seem to break your own habits, either. In fact, not only do you refuse to acknowledge that your gun collection presents a financial hurdle to your bank account at least equal to the one your wife is creating, a lot of your friends insist that you should be buying even moar guns.

So if I refuse to raise the credit limit, neither of us can spend foolishly????